Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/undertow-js.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/undertow-js-1.0.2-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: Undertow.js is an integration library that provides and easy way to integrate server side JavaScript code with Java EE components. This project allows you to register Undertow handlers using javascript, which can inject and use EE components such as CDI beans. It supports hot deployment, so it is possible to modify your scripts without any compile + redeploy cycle (especially when combined with the upcoming external resource support in Wildfly). Fedora Account System Username: gil Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14392673
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Java: [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Note: Can't find any BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is pulled in by maven-local [x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) Maven: [x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even when building with ant [x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping [x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used [x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage- utils for %update_maven_depmap macro [x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x]: Packages use .mfiles file list instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in undertow-js-javadoc [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Java: [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: undertow-js-1.0.2-1.fc25.noarch.rpm undertow-js-javadoc-1.0.2-1.fc25.noarch.rpm undertow-js-1.0.2-1.fc25.src.rpm undertow-js.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javascript -> java script, java-script, JavaScript undertow-js.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javascript -> java script, java-script, JavaScript 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory undertow-js.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javascript -> java script, java-script, JavaScript 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- undertow-js-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-tools undertow-js (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-tools Provides -------- undertow-js-javadoc: undertow-js-javadoc undertow-js: mvn(io.undertow.js:undertow-js) mvn(io.undertow.js:undertow-js:pom:) undertow-js Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/undertow-io/undertow.js/archive/1.0.2.Final.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 975f6dfe5f31399479a1e0e68effbc024dc7ba055fc950235fcb0e9f5507edb1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 975f6dfe5f31399479a1e0e68effbc024dc7ba055fc950235fcb0e9f5507edb1 http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1343025 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 Looks OK to me, APPROVED. FYI, there's a new upstream version available, but it's Beta, so I don't know whether you want to update now, or wait for final.
(In reply to Michael Simacek from comment #1) > Looks OK to me, APPROVED. FYI, there's a new upstream version available, but > it's Beta, so I don't know whether you want to update now, or wait for final. If is not strictly necessary i prefer use this release thanks for the review create new SCM requests: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/5896 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/5897
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/undertow-js
undertow-js-1.0.2-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-dff622bd97
undertow-js-1.0.2-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-dff622bd97
undertow-js-1.0.2-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.